Version: v0.1
Scope: Practical Boundary Review Add-on for LUMINA-30 pre-boundary review
Status: Current public working edition
Purpose
This kit provides public-facing wording for organizations that add a boundary check to their existing AI deployment review without making excessive claims.
It is intended to support statements such as “we added a boundary check to our existing AI review,” not statements such as “we have formally adopted LUMINA-30” or “this system is safe because it has been checked under LUMINA-30.”
Core wording
Not to stop AI, but to proceed with AI in a form that can be stopped.
Short public statement
We have added a boundary check to our existing AI deployment review: not to stop AI, but to proceed with AI in a form that can be stopped. The check asks whether an accountable human can actually stop the process before it becomes irreversible.
Formal public statement
Our organization has added, on a trial basis, a boundary check to our existing AI governance, legal, audit, and security procedures. This check does not replace those procedures. It supplements them by asking whether an accountable human can effectively refuse, stop, or hold an AI-mediated process before it becomes irreversible.
This check does not imply any specific safety guarantee or certification. Its purpose is to avoid situations where “human oversight” exists only as a record while no one can actually stop the process, and to identify gaps in authority, evidence, and stopping procedures before deployment.
Internal explanation
This boundary check adds one question to an existing review.
Before this process becomes irreversible, can an accountable human actually refuse, stop, or hold it?
A YES classification requires confirming the irreversible operation, the human decision point, the person or role able to decide, the mechanism that actually stops the process after refusal or hold, and the absence of automatic AI execution without human judgment. If NO or UNKNOWN is found, the interim measure, responsible owner, and review deadline are recorded.
Name-optional explanation
As part of our AI deployment review, we added a procedure to check whether a human can effectively refuse, stop, or hold the process before it becomes irreversible. This procedure does not replace legal, audit, security, or risk-management processes. It is a supplementary check for identifying gaps in authority and stoppability before deployment.
Acceptable wording
- We added a boundary check to an existing review.
- We check whether a human can actually stop the process before irreversibility.
- We check that human oversight is not merely formal.
- We identify gaps in authority, evidence, and stopping procedures.
- If NO or UNKNOWN is found, we record an interim measure, responsible owner, and review deadline.
- We treat this as a supplementary check within existing AI governance procedures.
Wording to avoid
- LUMINA-30 has been formally adopted, therefore the system is safe.
- This system is LUMINA-30 checked.
- LUMINA-30 is a safety guarantee.
- LUMINA-30 is a legal certification.
- LUMINA-30 is superior to existing AI governance.
- Passing this boundary check resolves AI risk.
- Existing institutions cannot function without this check.
Note
This public statement does not imply official adoption, certification, safety assurance, or legal compliance under LUMINA-30.
It should be treated as a supplementary boundary check, not as a replacement for existing procedures.
The purpose is not to stop AI as such. The purpose is to proceed with AI in a form where effective human refusal remains possible before irreversibility.